Hold Congress Accountable

About FreedomConnector

Find activists, groups, and events right in your own neighborhood. Join FreedomConnector to get involved and learn more about key issues threatening our economic freedom. Whether you’re looking for like-minded people, trying to boost your existing group’s impact, or simply trying to stay up on current events, FreedomConnector is the place to start. See what’s happening in your state today!

Search FreedomWorks

Resources

Blog

Supreme Court To Decide If Police Can Search Through Your Cell Phone Without a Warrant

If you’re arrested, can police search through your cell phone without first obtaining a warrant?

Unfortunately, the law regarding cell phones searches has been unclear especially in the rise of smart phones.

The Supreme Court heard two cases today about whether the police need warrants to search detainee’s mobile phones. Both of these cases, Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, involve suspects getting charged for additional crimes after the police found evidence on their cell phones after their arrest. The lower courts have been torn on the privacy issue.

This case should have huge implications as 12 million Americans are arrested every single year and most carry cell phones.

One side argues that cell phones, like wallets or purses, may be subject to search after an arrest. For better or for worse, the court has long upheld that police can search these personal items and anything "immediately associated" with the person involved without a warrant.

The other side, correctly, argues that police need to get a search warrant before searching someone’s cell phone. In today’s world, searching through someone’s phone can be as intrusive as searching through their home.

“A cell phone has the same contents that the home did in the founding era, it has digital equivalents of papers, letters, drawings, private financial documents, private medical documents,” said Jim Harper, an attorney with the libertarian Cato Institute. “It’s a digital incarnation of the contents of the home.”

This is particularly true of young people who seemingly keep their entire lives on their phones. I’d argue that cell phones are in a different category than wallets because it stores so much private and sensitive information about a person.

The way people many people use cell phones today is no different than a computer. If police have to get a warrant to search through someone’s computer, then yes, they need one to search through someone’s cell phone. This should be a no brainer.

A commonly asked question is, “how do we juggle civil liberties in a digital age?” I’d say that civil liberties should always be upheld, no matter what. We should all remain vigilant about our Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

This doesn't change simply because technology has progressed:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the EPA was unreasonable when it did not consider costs when it decided to regulate mercury emissions from power plants. The Court, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, held that the EPA must consider costs, including compliance costs, when deciding whether a regulation is appropriate and necessary.

The newly handed-down Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act has garnered a great deal of debate. The 6-3 vote in favor of the administration does nothing to fix the unworkable flaws that remain and continue to largely define Obamacare. No matter the lens used to view the ACA, the prognosis is bad.

Ten years ago today, the United States Supreme Court fundamentally changed the meaning and purpose of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which allows for the use of eminent domain for “public use,” such as a road. But in a 5 to 4 decision, the Court ruled that eminent domain could be used to take property from a private citizen for purposes other than a public use.

Many Americans are eagerly (and nervously) awaiting the King v. Burwell decision, which is expected to come at the end of the month. The court case will determine whether ObamaCare, which looks to be falling apart independently of legal intervention, is illegally providing subsidies to those enrolled in the exchange.

Civil asset forfeiture is a unique area of law in which the government charges specific property of being guilty of wrongdoing, rather than a person. Perhaps because the property is accused of wrongdoing, and not the person, governments often place lower standards of proof needed to forfeit the property. The procedures used by the federal government and many state governments creates grave Fourth and Fifth Amendment concerns.

Cory Maye, a loving father of an 18 month old daughter at the time, was sleeping in his living room the day after Christmas at 12:30 a.m. when he heard banging at the door. He had no prior record, but lived in a rough neighborhood, where break-ins had taken place before, so he grabbed his pistol and ran to the back bedroom to defend his daughter.

Jeb Bush continues to defend the National Security Agency's unconstitutional domestic spying program, telling a conservative talk show host that this gross encroachment on the Fourth Amendment is the "best part of the Obama administration."

There's no indication that the National Security Agency's unconstitutional domestic spying efforts have thwarted an actual terrorist plot inside the United States. In January 2014, the New America Foundation released a report on the 225 individuals investigated for terrorism in which it explained that the so-called "all calls" surveillance program "had no discernible impact on preventing acts of terrorism."

Under civil asset forfeiture, the government can take someone’s property without convicting them of a crime. The law has its basis in British admiralty law and makes little sense in today’s modern world. While there are has been some discussion of reforming forfeiture at the federal level, the states are leading the charge to reform. However, more reforms are needed at the state and federal level, and can be based on the reforms already implemented in some states.

On multiple occasions over the last few years, President Barack Obama has reminded voters that he won't appear on the ballot again. Indeed, our long national nightmare will come to an end in 674 days. Presidents, of course, tend to engage on policy and politics even after they leave the White House. There's no reason to believe Obama will be any different.